...the vast majority of second-round entries don't strike me as superstar quality at all. Really, only Polak and Vaneekhoven deserve to advance -- can we skip rounds 3 and 4 this year and just have these two go straight to 5?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your critique is too harsh, in my opinion.
I admit, I see quite some of the entries as being 'less than superstar'... but last time I checked the whole contest was to hone and polish any rough gems... and I think there are quite a few of the contestants here that have quite a lot of potential.
Just my 2 cents.
|
Agreeing with Midnight_Angel on this one.
Last year, when Round Two was archetypes, I felt a bit disappointed at first... but I came to realize that Round Two is usually the most difficult and surprising part of the competition. Sometimes surprising isn't always a good thing, but in my opinion the best thing for those of us who aren't in the running to do is vote for those you want to continue and let the competition run its course without resorting to what I perceive to be overtly dire and borderline insulting comments like [paraphrase]'only 2 people should advance let's scrap the rest of the contest'[/paraphrase].
Although not everything glows with wonderful perfection, there is a lot of creativity and hard work that shows in the organization submissions this year.
Am I surprised by some of them? Damn straight, sometimes unpleasantly.
Am I disappointed? No.
I'm glad to be a part of this and hope to help by letting all of the contestants know what I think of what they've done, so that even if they don't make it to Round 3 or 4 or 5 they have as much feedback as possible to work with in their future adventures if they choose to pursue a career as an RPG freelancer, or even as a writer period.
Last post for me in this thread, and as always this is only my opinion, and everyone else is totally entitled to their own, even Evil Midnight Lurkers what lurk at midnight. ;-P
I agree with Evil Midnight Lurker, although slightly differ on the 2 that I think should go through. I wonder if I had built my expectations too high based on the first round, and also underestimated the difficulty of the task.
Marathon Voter Season 6
|
...the vast majority of second-round entries don't strike me as superstar quality at all. Really, only Polak and Vaneekhoven deserve to advance -- can we skip rounds 3 and 4 this year and just have these two go straight to 5?
A little harsh but I understand the direction that you're coming from. I think a lot of contestants played it a little too safe and so you have a lot of submissions of similar standard with not much to differentiate them. For me, this means that I'm referring back to wondrous items as a means of separating out who I'll vote for. However, this was the same for me last year as well which is why I started a pre-feedback thread for this second round to try and help. Unfortunately it seems that only a handful of contestants read or commented in that thread.
The short of it is that there is so much talent to be polished among the top 32 so don't lose heart. I think now that the top 32 and soon to be top 16 have had the exposure to RPGSS, they will now be really turning their attention to making it through and getting some momentum. Should result in some good stuff for next round.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strange as it may be not everyone will like everything they are confronted with. People are different. But honestly, I'd like to immediately remind people that one of the best things about RPG Superstar is the nice, polite way people support and rationally comment each other's work. I don't like all top 32 items OR organizations. But not liking something, and feeling the need to publicly share that opinion is different things. I really think you should reconsider what you're saying to the other 30 people, who have, like it or not, done a hard piece of work, even if it's not one you appreciate. The least you can do is give them a reason why you don't like their work - then they at least know what to try and improve on. Of course, everyone are entitled to their opinions and everyone are entitled to freedom of speach. But one thing too many don't think about, in my opinion, is CONSEQUENCE of speach.
Consider, for a moment, that you're telling 30 people: "You're work is worthless!"
Consider, for a moment, that you're telling the judges: "Your opinion and trust that these people have potential is wrong!"
Consider, for a moment, that you're telling Paizo: "Just skip the next rounds of this contest so the people I like can win!"
Consider, then if that is your real intention. Do you really want 30 people to feel like their best work deserves nothing more than this? Do you really want all those who like another entry than you to be ignored? Do you really want to claim that you know more about what qualifies people to write RPG material than the chosen judges (who have all done it loads of times). Do you really want Paizo to shut down this contest and let people you like write an adventure, without testing if they're up to Paizo's wishes in several rounds of competition.
This kind of inconsiderate use of your freedom of speach makes me wonder if freedom of speach is a good thing.
I, personally, believe strongly that the main reason the Paizo-forums are a place worth spending time on is an aura of respect, polite behaviour and considerate critiscism. I'm sorry if my reaction to this seems too strong, but it seems to me that you will want to consider a little more carefully, in the future, the consequence of posting anything and everything you feel without any moderation to make it more acceptable to people who feel different.
Now these are just my feelings. Feel free to disagree. But tell me why, if you must.
Sincerely, and with - hopefully - due consideration,
Siv L. Strandberg
For me, this means that I'm referring back to wondrous items as a means of separating out who I'll vote for.
I also had to go back to the items to decide a few votes, but I believe Round 2 submissions should bear a greater weight in that decision. There's currently so much advice on building wondrous items, while round 2 usually relies more on the designer's gut feelings - and in that way it sometimes reflects better that designer's "raw" work, much like the first round of RPGSS used to be in the first years.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my estimation, this happens every year. There's always a (not inconsiderable) group of folks who look at the Round 2 entries and view them as disappointing...or not Superstar enough. Subsequently, they decry the process as somehow having less meaning or purpose. But let's reset expectations here for a second...
First, there have been plenty of people who bombed a Round 2 entry, bounced back in Rounds 3 and 4 and rode a huge wave of momentum into the Top 4 adventure proposal round. I think several of the eventual winners of RPG Superstar have often been in a trailing position (in terms of voter perception) in that final round and then came on strong to pitch the best idea for an actual adventure.
So, I think we all need to view the RPG Superstar contest as a place where creative people who can write reasonably well go through a series of challenges which hones their talent into something better than it started out. None of them come into the contest as fully-formed, experienced freelancers. If they were, they'd have already been "discovered" and wouldn't need RPG Superstar as a stepping stone into the world of freelancing.
It's a common fact that, in writing and game design, you get better by doing it. Not by sitting at home, playing your homebrew game, and being an arm-chair quarterback who feels they can do better than anyone else who's out there. You've got to get on the field, do the work, and see how you measure up in reality rather than just your own mind. So, give these actual competitors time. They're learning the ropes. These challenges are designed to test them in certain areas. And, in the process of each challenge, they'll get better at it...not simply through trial-and-error, but also from the feedback of the judges and the voting community.
So, be patient. These guys all have different talents and abilities. Some will be better at monster design and stat-blocking. Some will be better at dreaming up wondrous items. Others will make good world-builders by imagining great things like an organization, country, or villain to drop into a campaign setting. Some will have the ability to cook up incredibly entertaining encounters which run really well at the gaming table and have a really cool map. Others will have a unique storytelling talent and be able to structure and write an exceptionally compelling adventure.
Potential Superstar game designers (i.e., hopefully, those who emerge at the end of this contest) will have demonstrated (and learned) the ability to do most of those things better than average. And then, where they go from there once they receive an actual paid writing assignment with Paizo is up to them. That's why I always say it isn't simply what you do during RPG Superstar. It's more important what you do after when you apply all these lessons and the overall experience when called upon to do it for real.
Additionally, I want to point out something else about how this contest plays in Round 2. This is just an observation from someone who's gone through it and judged it before. To me, the judges are never 100% sure what they've got in their Top 32 selections. We base those decisions on a very brief snippet...a 300-word wondrous item...to try and get a sense of what a designer may be capable of. We're looking for spark, mojo, and innovation potential. But we don't know until we put them through their paces.
Round 2 is always the largest cut of all once the competition fully gets underway. It's essentially the proving ground to determine who among these Top 32 really deserves this opportunity. Some will do a really great wondrous item submission which they may have worked and practiced on over several months since last year's competiton. They make it into the Top 32 and celebrate. Then, they get on the big stage, see the bright lights and their competition, have a short turnaround time on the next assignment, and they fail to put forward their best stuff. These competitors usually wash out. But they do so having learned a valuable lesson. And, hopefully, they try again next year and come back much improved.
It's okay. We can't actually take all 32 to Round 3, you know? It's expected. This round actually helps the contest move forward. There are going to be some folks who have missteps. The judges are sometimes going to err in thinking someone's wondrous item demonstrated a spark that might not quite be there yet for a certain competitor. Sometimes, they don't even get to put forward their best work, because life or other circumstances get in the way. You never know. It happens. And it's okay.
But the goal of the contest is to find four worthy contestants to compete for the top prize. Not the entire 32. By its very nature, we already know we'll have to leave behind the other 28. Some of those 28 may be really strong designers who, through a series of bad judgement calls and various circumstances, slip up and fall out of the competition to someone whose star is rising. That's okay. Those guys can hopefully come back and compete again. Others may not be as strong a designer as we intitially hoped. They too will likely fall out of the competition. However, even if they do, hopefully the process and opportunity they received here made them into a stronger designer than before. They too can improve themselves and come back strong, more ready to compete than ever before.
That's how I view it, at least. No, the sky isn't falling if you feel a lot of folks weren't Superstar quality with their Round 2 entries. No, it's not a given that those who do best in Round 2 should automatically be crowned the winners. There's still many more challenges ahead. They vary in the things they test you on. And these designers each need to run that gauntlet and prove themselves across all these assignments for any of us to truly know who deserves to become an RPG Superstar.
My two cents,
--Neil
Wow, that's kind of harsh. If that's your opinion, then that's your opinion, but given that Paizo is not going to shut down rounds 3 and 4, I'm not sure what the point was in starting this thread.
I guess I can understand some of the general frustration that inevitably shows up after the Round 2 submissions are posted. It does seem to be where a number of the Top 32 suffer flameouts, but that's not really that surprising when you consider that while the entrants may have almost a year to put together their wondrous item, they have far less time to work up their Round 2 submission. I think too that there's always a small number of contestants who just "caught lighting in a bottle", and can't duplicate their success in Round 2. That's kind of the point of doing Round 2 and Round 3 and Round 4, after all -- it's to see who can pick themselves back up if they survive a sub-par entry in one round, and it's to see who can consistently push out quality work throughout five rounds.
You say cancel Rounds 3 and 4 and push Vaneekhoven and Polak straight to the finals. I say, what if Vaneekhoven and Polak both tripped up in those finals and gave us utter garbage for their module design? Anyone can have a bad round. Sixteen entrants aren't going to get the chance to recover from it, but some people are. I don't see that as a negative thing.
CR
EDIT: And while I was typing this, Neil responded. Curse my slow fingers.
When I say "I agree with Evil Midnight Lurker" I don't mean skipping rounds, after all, where is the fun in that? I've enjoyed reading through the wondrous items and organisations and learnt a lot about the game, and what the game designers expect from a writer.
Well, yeah, I agree that those two were the best this round. From the previous round, however, I would have discarded them alongside about 20 others, and yet they surprised me. Likewise I believe that many of those who this time failed to impress me will come up with something good the next round. Time will tell.
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7
|
I agree to the part of most of the organizations beeing disappointing - at least for me. I had trouble getting my votes together. But skipping Rounds? Hell no. I think the reason for the different challenges in each round isn't just to weed out the finalists, but to see the talent and imagination of the contestants for different fields of a designers work.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who is disappointed should simply cure that by entering next year and getting picked for the top 32 and then competing in the second round. :)
This contest is hard on purpose. We have to create tasks that actually help discriminate potential winners from those who are not. The fact that you are disappointed and the wheat is being separated from the chaff just means we are picking proper tasks. If we picked a task that all of the top 32 could do well, then we'd have 32 awesome entries and there would be no rational way to select between them other than pure favoritism, which isnt an objective criteria. So the task needs to result in a handful of successes and more failures. That is how this is sorted. So long as everyone has the same fair chance to do well, which they do.
So what you see as disappointment is really just a lack of thinking through what is going on here. Did you really expect 28 of the 32 to get As on this test? If that is the case, you need to rethink your expectations. We design the test so that it actually helps sort the candidates. So what that means is falling down on this task is not fatal. It is just one step. As Neil mentioned, a misstep on one round (usually round 2) has historically not proven to be fatal to later success. And we dont view it that way. These are all potential winners of the contest, every one--even the ones who in our comments we didnt recommend to advance.
As Neil mentioned, a misstep on one round (usually round 2) has historically not proven to be fatal to later success. And we dont view it that way. These are all potential winners of the contest, every one--even the ones who in our comments we didnt recommend to advance.
In fact, there were a couple of rounds during 2009 where I wasn't recommended to advance either.
After reading Gulga, I paid little heed to the judges in regards to your further entries Neil, they could have been written in binary for all I cared, you still would have gotten my votes based off what you did in round two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, Gulga Cench. As much as that creation helped me swiftly advance past Round 2, the fiendish otyugh also became an albatross around my neck. Everyone wanted to see the final adventure proposal feature him. And that was never my goal. I simply wanted to do the best on each assignment in every round to accomplish two distinct personal goals of my own:
#1 - Get a Freelancing Opportunity - Meaning, I very much see the RPG Superstar contest as a long running job interview. Paizo's developers watch what transpires here. Usually, you have one or two of them serving as actual judges in the competition. Several of them also participate as guest judges. So, I figured if I could do something amazing enough to get them talking about me in each challenge, that'd be a good thing. As such, I wanted to make sure I took each round's challenge "head on" to demonstrate I had the skillsets all of them would want in a freelancer.
So, round by round, I intentionally made it as hard on myself as I could, selecting a villain most people would assume to be completely unworkable. Who would dare try and make an otyugh into a mastermind as their villain? Quite simply, I would. And that's because I wanted to stand out. And I wanted to do a bang-up job on something which would make Paizo's developers take notice. I also intentionally chose to make Gulga Cench out of a templated monster with class levels, because again, I wanted the assignment's difficulty to be as high as I could personally make it, all in the hopes it would demonstrate my ability to handle every aspect of such an assignment...and so it would cause those following along at the Paizo office to notice me.
Later on, with the curveball they threw us in the villain's lair round, I intentionally picked something no one else would even attempt...i.e., Sharina Legendsinger, the manipulative bard. Who could salvage that kind of villain and make it interesting all over again? Me. That's what I wanted the developers at Paizo to notice about me...i.e., that there'd be no task I couldn't or wouldn't take on for them. And, by doing that, I hoped I'd catch their eye even if I didn't make it beyond the Top 8. That's how badly I wanted to write something for them. And all those risks paid off.
#2 - Win Enough Votes to Keep Advancing - The other primary goal I had was to appeal to the voting public. What they think of as cool and awesome isn't always in synch with what the judges think is awesome. But you have to be really careful in reading that about the marketplace and the consumer's appetite. Primarily, I wanted to keep doing work in each round that amazed people (as in, "I can't believe he did that..." or "I'd have never imagined to approach the assignment that way..."), but also to entertain. Because that's a very real element to this game. The more you can entertain the voters, the more they want to see what you've got next. But you can't go crazy here. If you go off the reservation too far, they'll call you on it and vote you out just as easily. So, it has to be a careful enough balance between their expectations of you and your expectations of yourself.
To which, you also have to consider that the judges are a part of your audience. They generally represent a fairly informed opinion of both the history of the game, as well as the current marketplace. So, if you can win their "votes"...or at least, recommendations...that too can serve you swaying more of the actual voters to your cause. And, as long as you keep advancing, you keep getting an opportunity to learn more, grow as a designer, and catch the eye of all those watching from the sideline who might be interested in giving you an opportunity as a freelancer. And I don't just mean Paizo. There are other third party publishers out there who pay attention to this contest and the talent which flows through it, as well. As long as you can keep earning everyone's approval with your designs, the more opportunities that can hopefully come out of the competition for you. You just need to be wise enough to recognize the goals within each assignment and how to approach them in order to maximize your appeal as a potential freelance talent to everyone in the audience. And, the more rounds you can advance, the more chances you get to do that. But to advance, you have to win over the voting public.
I had other goals, as well. Each round really does teach you a lot about game design. The judges' comments are almost always super useful in that way, but so too are the comments that come flooding in from all the voters. Many of them are way better rules lawyers or campaign setting canon experts than I'll ever be. But, as a competitor within the contest (or even an observer just following along), it's amazing all the stuff you can pick up to make yourself that much better. And, by extension, I really do think that helps make the entire hobby better.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
My point is that the sheer awesomeness of your round two entry helped carry you through later rounds, and I am sure that I am not the only person who still cast a vote for you even though they thought one of your later round entries might not have been as strong, based upon nothing more than the potential awesomeness that you showed you could bring to the table (and I never expected a Gulga Cench adventure... although I am sure that one would be awesome if you ever got around to writing it).
From my observations of previous years I agree that round two is often the hardest round, and I think that most of the voters realize that was well. While doing poorly in round two (although still well enough to advance) will not doom a contestant, I think that it makes the voters even more critical of that contestant in future rounds, while conversely if a person really nails the round two entry it can help carry them in future rounds, ass the voting public is willing to cut them a little more slack based upon their prior awesomeness.
|
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
I was going to save this for the end of the contest as to not imply anything to the people who made it through. All of them did a better job of designing a magic item than I did and hence they are properly rewarded. I also thing there are many organizations that will get my vote, though not all I vote for will advance.
I do suspect people are 'catching on' to the create a magic item. I remember looking at some of the older contests and thinking there was more consistency from round to round and fewer 'drop offs'.
Basically, people have a year to come up with a magic item and perhaps a month to think of everything else. This allows people to polish the magic item and be weaker in future rounds.
Perhaps next year, if a month out you announced that the first round would be, say, create a level 6 npc in a 1000 words (or something else that's practical, I'm not sure what is), you might get a slightly different round 2.
And yes, there is a degree of self interest because I believe I can create better organizations, NPCs or whatever than magic items.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Perhaps next year, if a month out you announced that the first round would be, say, create a level 6 npc in a 1000 words (or something else that's practical, I'm not sure what is), you might get a slightly different round 2.
The round 1 entries need to be something simple and quick to review. Adding more complexity necessitates more time spent on the winnowing process, leaving fewer creatures able to judge due to time constraints. Items are simple to review and see if someone understands the basic principles and balance issues behind the system rules. Throwing a secret twist (e.g. limiting prices, schools, slots, etc) into the process limits creativity and some great items may never see fruition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real lesson here is that I should refrain from posting anything at three in the morning when I'm tired, grumpy, and irrational. My apologies to the contestants.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real lesson here is that I should refrain from posting anything at three in the morning when I'm tired, grumpy, and irrational. My apologies to the contestants.
"Thank you for your support and please vote for my item! If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them once voting for this round is closed."
My experience, from having followed this contest since its inception, is that Round 2 challenges are probably very difficult to write and to judge, and in my opinion, it's the hardest round of the contest in which to consider each entry fully and fairly from the standpoint of a voter.
Typically, Round 2 is a wall-of-text challenge, despite having an established format and a template to follow. There's little to no chance to show off game crunch and dazzle people with a well-designed stat block - your chances of advancement are solely dependent upon how well you can keep the readers' attention with your prose.
As a voter, I always find it frustrating to read Round 2 entries because about half of them bore me to tears - the submitter has good enough design chops to throw out a wondrous item and refine it enough times to make it sparkle, but under deadline pressures their creativity may falter, and it's easier to present a novel game mechanic as exciting and refreshing than to just tell a story about a location or an organization that will keep your reader captivated.
I can't imagine what it must be like for the judges. I at least have the option of choosing which entries to comment on - they don't. They have to go through 32 of these and cut them apart and really absorb every detail presented in order to judge fairly.
Having said all that, Round 2 was easier to read this year than it was last year for me. I haven't found it disappointing.
(I do wonder, though, if Ryan Dancey truly likes anything anymore after reading his commentary. If my count is right, he only recommended advancement for two entries!)
Apology accepted AML. We all have moments like that, and it takes guts and maturity to apologise in public. Thank you.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
aka primemover003
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Round 2 is really a meatgrinder. The archetype last year was TOUGH because a lot of the fertile ground had been covered in the APG and it was a new mechanic. Organizations can be pretty tough too, especially compared to gems like the Hellknights!
It's ok to get beat up in this round because you'll learn a lot about what you did right and wrong with your entry, where your design process can use work, and how the community feels about things.
Just a word of advice for Round 3... sell the concept, not the mechanics of your monster.
Obviously we haven't seent the official rules for next round BUT I got hung up on the stats of my NPC last year and didn't sell WHO he was enough. Think about the first thing you do when you open a new monster book. Other than looking at the pictures, I know I skip right to the text on what they look like, how they act and what they do in the world. Afterwards I go and look at the mechanics of the beast.
--Stat Vrock
I can't imagine what it must be like for the judges.
Round 2 is by far the hardest. Well, there are obviously MORE entries in round 1, but the vast majority are quickly read and rejected. Only 100 or so get detailed comments and those are not super extensive. And we have a lot of time to do it.
Round 2, we have to (well, we dont have to, but I think it is only right to do) extensive comments on all 32 and some you probably just want to do very short comments. But you want to be fair and treat them all the same since they are all top 32. And the time frame to do all 32 is super short (sure, it is as long as later rounds, but you have more things to review). For example, let's say you only spend 15 minutes reading and typing up your review--which I do easily as a very minimum--you do the math: 15 min x 32 entries = 8 hours of work. And I can tell you I easily do more than 8 hours on this round. Think about the time Neil puts in. Just read those evals.
My process for Round 2 is usually this:
The first night I read all the entries and I post a 1 or 2 line initial reaction. I dont do a full review of any until I have read all of them because I want a gut feeling of where each one sits against the others.
The second night I start my review process, doing maybe 3 hours of work.
Then the last two night I do all the rest. In this year's contest I was up until almost 3 am on the last night finishing my reviews.
In addition to my day job, which is quite demanding, I am also a dad and have to help with homework, a husband and have to have family time, I am the president of a board and member of other organizations, plus I officiate high school varsity basketball (and I have games usually 3 nights a week). So my schedule is jammed. Finding 8+ hours in that few number of days is nearly impossible. Sleep is sacrificed.
...I too am disappointed; bit more in the contest than the entries. 'Organizations' hardly seems like a 'Superstar' thing to have to provide. In short, my complaint is mechanically they're so niche that outside of a particular setting they're rather worthless to have on hand.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with your assessment. Considering the design goal these competitors were under was to make sure their creation fit within the world of Golarion, the official campaign setting for Paizo, I think the contest assignment is right on target. If these guys are interested in writing for Paizo, why wouldn't you want to test them on their ability to create new stuff (including an organization) for the publisher's official campaign setting? And, if you're going to test them on that, why wouldn't you also want to design that challenge to see a) how well they write descriptive text for a piece of world-building information like an organization, and b) how creative they can be in designing something awesome for it?
Likewise, if the final prize is writing an adventure (whether it's the RPG Superstar Pathfinder Module or a PFS scenario), you should already realize it'll entail making sure your adventure fits the campaign setting. This round is a small "building block" towards testing and training the contestants on their ability to research and apply their knowledge of the campaign setting to their designs. This is exactly what Paizo (or any other publisher) needs their freelancers to be capable of doing...even on a moment's notice. If you're not up to speed on their campaign world and you're not comfortable writing for anything other than your own homebrew creations, then freelancing for an established publisher is not for you. Believe me.
In prior years, we've had assignments for "create a nation" and "create a villain." Although the "create a nation" assignment didn't draw upon Golarion (because it didn't exist yet), the "create a villain" generally does. Or, at least, the smart competitors make sure that it does. Similarly, there have been "create an encounter" challenges before where the assignment called for the competitors to specifically place the encounter somewhere in Golarion. So, it's a tried and true design challenge. And a perfectly valid one given the both the ultimate prize of the contest as well as the opportunity to continue freelancing on Paizo products after that.
Again, if you're not comfortable learning and freelancing with someone else's IP, you need to go self-publish instead. Very few people are capable of doing that on their own. Many more people find their greatest opportunity writing for an established publisher. But, to do that, you've got to write material that supports what they already sell. In Paizo's case, that includes Golarion.
My two cents,
--Neil
|
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
Perhaps next year, if a month out you announced that the first round would be, say, create a level 6 npc in a 1000 words (or something else that's practical, I'm not sure what is), you might get a slightly different round 2.The round 1 entries need to be something simple and quick to review. Adding more complexity necessitates more time spent on the winnowing process, leaving fewer creatures able to judge due to time constraints.
I'm not say anything more complex and truthfully I'm not saying what that would be because I'm not on the other end. But 'other than magic item' does not mean not simple and quick to review. Yes, I used an example, but the point is, other than magic item.
It also would be a good teaching tool because like anything, expections of an editor or publisher can change. Being able to change is also a 'job skill'.
Perhaps next year, if a month out you announced that the first round would be, say, create a level 6 npc in a 1000 words (or something else that's practical, I'm not sure what is), you might get a slightly different round 2.
That is just not a possible for a round 1 submission. Judging an NPC would require us to crunch a ton of math. That is just not possible with hundreds upon hundreds of submissions.
The wondrous item is a perfect first round task. Every year people say do something different. But there simply is not better replacement task. Candidly, the only one even remotely close would be to create a new spell. But that is more rules-fu and less creativity. The wondrous item really is the perfect round 1 task.
...the vast majority of second-round entries don't strike me as superstar quality at all. Really, only Polak and Vaneekhoven deserve to advance -- can we skip rounds 3 and 4 this year and just have these two go straight to 5?
On a certain level I agree that not two many entries really got my vote of confidence, but I have voted in prior Superstar events where someone who I was was not feeling really blew me away later, and where people who I thought did fantastic jobs earlier kind of fell off. That shows that one good or bad showing does not make or break someone. It could also just be that the people I liked or that you liked were really good with organizations. We will just have to see how they do later on.
It should also be noted that the organization limit on words made it really difficult to convey what the overall ideal of an organization was intended to be. I wrote one(organization) up in case I made it to round 2, but it was really hard to get it down to the word limit. I am sure that affected the superstars. They also don't have the privilege of looking at previous contest to see how judges looked at organizations so they could avoid pitfalls.
After reading Gulga, I paid little heed to the judges in regards to your further entries Neil, they could have been written in binary for all I cared, you still would have gotten my votes based off what you did in round two.
This is important because I have given people votes based on previous rounds. I think everyone, even a professional, can have a bad day so I try look at the body of work as well especially if I have one vote left to give, and 3 people who I think are deserving of it.
Too be fair to those of us that are feeling disappointed, the judges comments may have swayed us somewhat. Looking at the judges feedback, where I can discern a recommendation:
16 entries got no recommendation at all,
5 got one,
5 got two,
4 got three,
and only 2 were recommended by all 4 judges.
One of the judges could only find 5 to recommend at all.
Go back and look at Round 2 from 2009. I think you'll find things turned out very similar. There were two villains all the judges recommended and then a whole bunch that got panned. Personally, I think things turned out pretty okay that year. But, I may be biased. ;-)
Too be fair to those of us that are feeling disappointed, the judges comments may have swayed us somewhat. Looking at the judges feedback, where I can discern a recommendation:
16 entries got no recommendation at all,
5 got one,
5 got two,
4 got three,
and only 2 were recommended by all 4 judges.One of the judges could only find 5 to recommend at all.
I think you are compiling your data wrong. The number of items that got recommendations is only part of the issue. I think you should list how many items a judge recommended. Then we can talk about the whys of that.
Clark recommended X
Sean recommended Y
Neil recommended Z
Ryan recommended 5.
We are conscious of how many votes each voter has to cast, so we try to limit our recommendations to that (in other words, we try not to recommend more than 8 this round since that is all the votes people could cast), but in the end we are just noting which we recommend be considered to advance. So if we are constraining ourselves to the number of votes available and only recommending about 8 each, it shouldnt be a surprise that 16 of the 32 got a recommendation. I recommended more than 8 because I had three that were the bottom of the "recommend" pile and I felt they were about the same and so I recommended all three be considered even though there is no way to vote for all the ones I recommended.
I think I recommended 10 or 11. I think Neil did 8 or 9. I thin Sean did 8. I think Ryan did 5. The fact that we overlap shouldn't be that surprising.
Actually, I recommended 12 and put myself on the fence for 4. If you add those up, that's a recommended field to round out a Top 16. But that's just a set of recommendations based almost exclusively on the current round assignment. As a judge, I tend not to go back and rely on work in the prior rounds...except during my final recommendations on an adventure proposal, as I think it's very important to assess someone's overall readiness to take the prize and write an actual 32-page adventure as a freelancer.
I see what you mean. 4 judges averaging about 8 recommendations each means that even if they were evenly spread across all the entries, each would only get 1 recommendation.
I took the recommendations into account, and the judges critiques. Unfortunately, of the 6 that got the most recommendations I discounted 3 because I just wouldn't include them in my game because I'll be playing with kids (no guns, no drugs and I wasn't happy with the use of the word bastards). Maybe I should revisit them and consider how they fit in the game rather than my game.
Actually, I recommended 12
I might have done 12, too. But the point is generally we try to recommend no more (or very few more) than the voters have votes for advancement, and certainly NO MORE than may actually advance. I just wanted the prior poster to keep that in mind when evaluating the recommendations.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wondrous item is a perfect first round task. Every year people say do something different. But there simply is not better replacement task. Candidly, the only one even remotely close would be to create a new spell. But that is more rules-fu and less creativity. The wondrous item really is the perfect round 1 task.
Clark, when you get a second (yeah right! Holy heck, I knew you were busy, but not THAT busy!), would you mind expounding on this? Two things, really...
1) How would the only task even close to wondrous items be a spell? For instance, would creating a specific magic weapon not be fairly close to a wondrous item, and similar (while not identical) as far as the design process?
2) When you say a spell is more rules-fu and less creativity, why do you say that, exactly? It would seem to me to be a good balance of both elements. Few things indicate mojo as much as a well-written spell.
I have a ton of respect for the work you guys do for this contest, but I wonder if the contest itself might not be suffering a tiny, tiny bit due to the stagnation of the first round. I think if you took a really long, hard look at it in a purely objective way you might feel the same way. Maybe not necessarily from a judge's perspective, but also consider the participant's perspective, which is the side that is stagnating, it seems. After all, there have been what? 3,500 wondrous items submitted since Neil's year? The design space is getting smaller and smaller... (I didn't submit this year, so this is not me having sour grapes, lest you think that's what this is about.) Anyway, just offering some thoughts/feedback as an observer.
1) How would the only task even close to wondrous items be a spell? For instance, would creating a specific magic weapon not be fairly close to a wondrous item, and similar (while not identical) as far as the design process?
Magic weapons are way more limited. Literally, a wondrous item could be anything and mess with just about any rules system. Weapons are so much narrower in scope, it would be harder to find cool ones and to find creative spark. Weapons are generally just buffing attacks. Wondrous items can do so much more and thus are open to way more interesting and creative submissions.
2) When you say a spell is more rules-fu and less creativity, why do you say that, exactly? It would seem to me to be a good balance of both elements. Few things indicate mojo as much as a well-written spell.
Really, what is the difference between fireball and lightning bolt? Answer that question and you will see what I mean--its the rules-fu, not the creativity. It just doesnt have the same design themes and permit the complexity of a wondrous item.
|
|
Thank you kindly for the response, horned one!
Insofar as the spells bit goes, I agree to an extent. That particular example compares two rather non-superstar-quality spells, though, doesn't it? It seems rather like comparing a cloak of resistance and a headband of alluring charisma. I take your meaning, though.
I guess I think of it as: anything I could design a wondrous item to do, I could design a spell to do, although the reverse doesn't necessarily follow. To me, the flavor text of spells can be so interesting and neat (or bland, boring, and confusing) that I think the wheat would separate from the chaff rather easily. But I'm reasonable enough to understand that you have a much more finely tuned sense of this sort of thing than I, being both a longtime RPG community staple and a longtime judge-type. I guess I'm just putting it out there as something to chew on in the offseason. I totally accept that I may be entirely wrong.
Yeah a lot of these organisations aren't really doing it for me either. HOWEVER, in all fairness to the competitors, it's apparently really hard to come up with antagonistic organisations that I like. Mostly I wind up liking the ones from darker, morally ambiguous settings--Eberron, Shadowrun, Ars Magica, & V:tM... maybe the FR too, if I'm allowed to count the Harpers as antagonistic... heh heh heh...
Here's the thing about spells... they basically only have ten possible "costs"/power levels... 0-level, 1st, 2nd, and so on. By comparison, a wondrous item can have a cost/power level anywhere from 1gp to 200,000 gp. That limited variance of spells really restricts what you can do with them.
This kind of inconsiderate use of your freedom of speach makes me wonder if freedom of speach is a good thing.
Yikes! I was with you until this very scary line. I hope you don't ever seriously wonder about freedom of speech being a "good thing".
As for the original post, I too was surprised that the submissions weren't a little better. But I had no problem picking 8 to vote for that I thought were more than worthy to move on. I understand that the constraints...I mean rules...for this round were very hard to work with because I had made my own organization under those guidelines and it was difficult. So I give props to all who submitted their organizations in round 2, even if a few fell short, and I look forward to all the up coming rounds.
Yikes! I was with you until this very scary line. I hope you don't ever seriously wonder about freedom of speech being a "good thing".
That's taking her comment out of context and isn't fair. Her main point, as I understand it, is not much different than mom's best advice: "If you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything at all."
Here's the thing about spells... they basically only have ten possible "costs"/power levels... 0-level, 1st, 2nd, and so on. By comparison, a wondrous item can have a cost/power level anywhere from 1gp to 200,000 gp. That limited variance of spells really restricts what you can do with them.
I disagree with this. Spell level (and of course class list) is only one "cost" from a spell. Other costs are:
- casting time- material components
- (to a limited extent) verbal and somatic components
You can also modify the core effect of a spell by tweaking the levers such as duration, damage, etc.
Besides, the judges have said on numerous occasions that the cost of the item is not the key deciding factor in "winning" submissions. Generally the price has to be in the right ball park, but they are looking for innovative design above accurate pricing.
I think the core difference between spells and Wondrous Items is that, in general, spells have transient temporary effects (with a few exceptions such as permanacy, contingency, and to some extent 1 hour/level spells), and Wondrous Items often have permanent effects such as the bag of holding, folding boat, goggles of night etc.
The other key difference is the visuals. Spells you generally wave your hands, there is some transient visuals and then something happens. Wondrous Items have a core visual element (the item!) that is linked in some way to the effect.
Presumably exploring both of these design spaces then (permanency, visuals) are ones the judges are very much interested in, as these are the spaces that spells tend to not cross into.
I disagree with this. Spell level (and of course class list) is only one "cost" from a spell. Other costs are:
- casting time
- material components
- (to a limited extent) verbal and somatic components
You can also modify the core effect of a spell by tweaking the levers such as duration, damage, etc.
But you're still dealing with the fundamental rule that a spell of level X has to be about as powerful as another spell of level X. If you create a combat 3rd-level wizard spell that deals 2d6 hit points per caster level to an area, you've almost certainly made a broken spell. If you've made a combat 1st-level wizard spell that deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, you've made a too-weak spell. There are benchmark spells for various power levels--buffs, direct attacks, glyph-like traps, castle defenses, and so on, and if you violate those, you've made a bad spell and you lose the design challenge.
Besides, the judges have said on numerous occasions that the cost of the item is not the key deciding factor in "winning" submissions. Generally the price has to be in the right ball park, but they are looking for innovative design above accurate pricing.
My point is you can have wondrous items cost almost anything. But what if the R1 challeng was "Create a wondrous item with a price of 100gp, 1,000 gp, 5,000 gp, 25,000 gp, 50,000 gp, or 100,000 gp"? That's a much more difficult challenge.
|
|
In a setting that already has organizations like the Pathfinders or the Blackfire Adepts or the Iridian Fold or the Aspis Consortium or the Hellknights or even the disavowed Darklight Sisterhood, it does seem like a credible challenge to come up with something new and fresh in that area.
Whole campaigns can be run around the Prophets of the Kalistrade or the Red Mantis Assassins or the Bellflower Network or the Eagle Knights. Multiple adventures have dealt with the Whispering Way and the Church of Razmir.
If this sort of contest can come up with some organizations that have that sort of evocative appeal, that would rock.
Presumably exploring both of these design spaces then (permanency, visuals) are ones the judges are very much interested in, as these are the spaces that spells tend to not cross into.
No need to presume. You've just had the actual judges tell you we are not interested in them equally.
And further we are telling you that we strongly believe that the wondrous item gives more potential variety and thus permits the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of entrants the chance for unique items and thus is the best first round task. The history of the contest has proved us right, in my view. There is simply greater design breathing room with a wondrous item than with a spell. Having designed both, I just don't think there is even much room to debate the point.
Wondrous items can get inspiration for use by any/all classes as well, while spells would be limited to only certain classes instead. Not sure if that came across clearly, but i hope it's generally understood what i was trying to say.
Wondrous items can get inspiration for use by any/all classes as well, while spells would be limited to only certain classes instead. Not sure if that came across clearly, but i hope it's generally understood what i was trying to say.
That's actually the best argument I've seen for not using spells.
No Superstar spell would be a flat damage spell just like no Superstar item would be a flat +2 to AC.
Managing power levels shows understanding of design.
The real benefit to spells would be the more focused paragraph structure to better judge writing ability and the integration of new design into an already highly structured design format. Wondrous items are actually quite open ended.
But, yeah, spells are quite pigeon holed in terms of the pervasiveness in game-play and design.